Arbitration clauses in investment treaties often provide in
vestors with a choice between ICSID arbitration and rules originally dra
fted for commercial arbitration. Whereas the ICSID system is intended as
a &ldquo\;self-contained&rdquo\; convention-based regime\, arbitration
outside of ICSID is more diverse\, in that national courts and commercia
l arbitral institutions sometimes play a role in the decision-making. Th
is text studies the practice of these actors.

\n\n

The book is stru
ctured in the following way. First\, the historic background to the use
of &ldquo\;non-ICSID&rdquo\; rules is introduced. This introductory chap
ter shows that while investment treaties concluded in the 1960s and 1970
s referred almost exclusively to ICSID arbitration\, references to other
rules increased in the 1980s. Two possible explanations are given for t
his general move away from ICSID as the sole available forum for treaty-
based investment arbitration: the demonstration effect of the Iran-Unite
d State Claims Tribunal&rsquo\;s use of the UNCITRAL Rules\, and the dis
content following the first few ICSID annulment decision in the mid-1980
s.

\n\n

Then\, based on a review of arbitral awards challenged on j
urisdictional grounds\, it is demonstrated how domestic courts have exhi
bited different approaches to matters such as standard of review and tre
aty interpretation.

\n\n

A further chapter reviews the experience o
f the two most used commercial arbitration institutions &ndash\; the ICC
and the SCC &ndash\; which occasionally have made decisions that influe
nce the scope of individual arbitral tribunals&rsquo\; jurisdiction. Thi
s practice is central in many investment disputes\, but has never been t
he subject of systematic study. During the administration of arbitration
s\, the institutions have\, for example\, designated the place of arbitr
ation and scrutinized draft jurisdictional awards. Furthermore\, the way
that the commercial arbitration rules are drafted influence tribunal ju
risdiction. In this respect\, the clearest example is the introduction o
f emergency arbitration in treaty-based cases.

\n\n

The book conclu
des by putting the studied experience in a larger perspective against th
e back-drop of mounting concerns against inconsistent decision-making in
investment arbitration. It is suggested that when contemplating the dra
fting of future investment treaties\, drafters ought to be cognizant of
the jurisdictional implications of arbitrating treaty-based cases under
non-ICSID rules.&nbsp\;